Location: I ain't in Kansas anymore, just north of where Dorothy clicked her heels is where you'll find me.

Posts: 754

Thanks: 408

Thanked 186 Times in 143 Posts

Implementing A Reverse Slop Defense

Reverse Slope Defense

A reverse slope defence is a military tactic where a defending force is positioned on the slope of an elevated terrain feature such as a hill, ridge, or mountain, on the side opposite from the attacking force.

It is alternately described as a positioning technique characterized by the location of defensive forces on a slope of a hill, ridge, or mountain that descends away from the enemy.

My Implementation

I took a flat desert map in the Map Editor, using the "*5" key sequence to create an elevation stretching several hexes. Afterwards, I flattened all hexes adjacent to the created elevation. Returning to the Editor I deployed AFVs adjacent to the elevated hexes facing the elevated hexes (towards the expected path of the opposing force hidden by the elevated hexes).

The AFVs remain hidden until an approaching vehicle moved over an elevated hex. Then bam!

Any thoughts on how to better implement a reverse slop defense in the game?

In this implementation, the player must mouse over hexes of the unit intended path (a practice I emphasis) to notice the difference in hex elevation.

The tanks coming over the crest are, in the game, considered hull-down and consequentially harder to hit - If they survive the opportunity fire when first becoming visible they will have a significant advantage in future turns.

Not sure what you mean, but you can just find a ridge in the game (very easy to spot one) and park your vehicles behind. Reverse slope is good if you got the range disadvantage by any means (worse accuracy long range, your guns not being able to penetrate enemy armor at long ranges, the enemy having TI and you not etc) and you should ALWAYS park your tanks behind hills the moment ATGMs start appearing on the battlefield.

Location: I ain't in Kansas anymore, just north of where Dorothy clicked her heels is where you'll find me.

Posts: 754

Thanks: 408

Thanked 186 Times in 143 Posts

Re: Implementing A Reverse Slop Defense

I am really concerned about the tanks along the reverse slope and should the attacking player be given subtle clues on the map of the reverse slope. In the game, if the size of the elevation is equal to or greater than the vehicle size, the vehicle is neither hull down nor turret down, but hidden. If the player does not notice the slight elevation, he may move his vehicle along at say 7 to 11 mph, once he moves over the elevated hex, the tanks in the reverse slope will light him up. If the player has defending units say ATGMs and AFVs on the counter slope, case close, it is a kill.

The AFVs along the reverse slope should be hidden. Otherwise, an opposing scouting unit or slow moving AFV may spot the turret and engage it with tank fires and missiles.

The tanks coming over the crest are, in the game, considered hull-down and consequentially harder to hit - If they survive the opportunity fire when first becoming visible they will have a significant advantage in future turns.

A key factor in real life reverse slope defense is the angle of slope needs to be steep enough that the enemy tanks crossing the topographical crest cannot depress their main gun enough to target the defenders. This prevents the hull-down danger. Typically western style tank design (higher placement of gun/turret with turret crew in a turret basket floor) has more minus depression than soviet style design but I am not sure if the game reflects this.
I think a difference of more than +5/+0 in the slope design might give better results. In real life a steep climb for the enemy and a long slope for the defender works best.

Gun depression/elevation aren't modeled in WinSPMBT unless there's some hard coded factor we don't actually see in the game. Don would have to answer that tho.

It isn't modelled - all units have the same depression and elevation.

Hull down in the game is either dug-in, swimming, or on a higher elevation than the firer. Hull down makes hitting a little more difficult and tends to give more turret hits as the hull is considered masked.

Here is a modified reverse slope defense that we used once at the National Training Center in the Mojave desert. (Ft. Irwin CA.)
Our tank heavy battle group was deployed along a linear elevation in a deliberate defense against an OPFOR brigade sized attack.
Scattered ahead of the defense, 500m-1000m, were dismounted LAW/Dragon/TOW teams dug in on the reverse slope of terrain features orientated towards the defenders. (away from the enemy advance)
A group of the defenders (tanks and empty APCs) engaged the enemy at maximum range then displaced to prepared positions to make sure the enemy fixed upon the distant ridge as the defensive line.
As the enemy advanced past the forward positions the AT assets engaged them against their rear armor while the defending tanks engaged them from the front.
The defense was successful although the mop-up was a messy affair as the OPFOR attack devolved into widely scattered groups of vehicle deprived attackers and the defenders need to counter attack to support their now isolated reverse slope AT/Infantry teams.
If interested, I was part of a 4 man recon team deployed to a rocky and hopefully inaccessible hill top about 5 KM ahead of the battle to call in air/artillery (and direction of attack) on the OPFOR.
It was definitely a set-piece battle and a desperate defense tactic but in regards to time constraints/on hand troops&equipment and left/right terrain and boundary constraints, the old adage of set-piece battles only occurring in textbooks is not true IMO.